If Franz Kafka covered the Pentagon for the Washington Post, he couldn’t have done better than yesterday’s backgrounder by Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung, titled, “Adm. Mullen’s words on Pakistan come under scrutiny.” Unnamed Obama administration officials told the newspaper that “Adm. Mike Mullen’s assertion last week that an anti-American insurgent group in Afghanistan is a ‘veritable arm’ of Pakistan’s spy service was overstated and contributed to overheated reactions in Pakistan and misperceptions in Washington.” But the officials didn’t want to be quoted publicly so as not to be seen challenging the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

A serving officer tells the truth in public about Pakistani spooks plotting with jihadi fanatics to attack a U.S. embassy and murder Americans? And the State Department types lurk in the shadows complaining that he’s exaggerating? It must be that the Kingdom’s coming, or the Year of Jubilo. The fact that the striped pants set doesn’t have the temerity to refute, or let alone rein in, the estimable Admiral Mullen after he exposed Pakistani collaboration tells a great deal about the mood of the American people.

Judging from the questions thrown at me on radio talk shows during the past week, Americans have no patience for putative allies who conspire behind our backs to murder American personnel. They want to know: Why do we put up with this sort of murderous betrayal from Islamabad?

Why, for that matter, have we let Iran get away with the murder-by-proxy of American soldiers in Iraq? The answer in both cases is that our commitment to stability in the region compels us to pretend that inherently unstable, murderous, and dangerous regimes are pillars of public order who must be appeased and protected. That is the fundamental flaw in American foreign policy, and it infected the Bush Freedom Agenda from the beginning.

Why didn’t we deal with the murderous mullahs of Tehran years ago when it became evident that they intended to acquire nuclear weapons? With characteristic candor, Mike Mullen explained why in a March 6, 2009, interview with Charlie Rose: “What I worry about in terms of an attack on Iran is, in addition to the immediate effect, the effect of the attack, it’s the unintended consequences. It’s the further destabilization in the region. It’s how they would respond. We have lots of Americans who live in that region who are under the threat envelope right now [because of the] capability that Iran has across the Gulf. So, I worry about their responses and I worry about it escalating in ways that we couldn’t predict.”

I complained at the time, “A rough translation of Mullen’s remarks into civilian political language is that the quixotic notion of building democracy in the Middle East led the United States into an Iranian trap.” Iran could (and still can) act as a spoiler in Iraq and make shambles of our trillion-dollar investment in Iraqi democracy. The Bush administration held back from hitting Iran because, as Mike Mullen explained, our nation-building exercise made American warriors into targets and hostages.

68 Comments, 36 Threads

1.
snipe

I can’t disagree with the criticisms of American policy; the first thought that jumped into the mind of a lot of informed people on 9-11 was “the ISI is involved with/promoted” this attack. I have to express doubts about India as an ally. There still seems to be a lot of anti-Americanism and “non-aligned movement” thinking by Indian politicians. In addition Indians would undoubtedly believe that, if push comes to shove, they have more risk from a conflict with Pakistan than the U.S. They wouldn’t be wrong about that. They also might question whether the U.S. itself could be relied on if a conflict stretched on longer than a year or so. There is plenty of evidence in the last 50 years to support that concern also.

The Indian relationship is difficult, to be sure, in part for reasons you mention:the Indians ask whether they could rely on the US, IF the US were an ally. There’s a lot of damage to be undone, and there’s also the problem of China, which is supporting Pakistan partly to pressure India. After so many years of lousing things up, we can’t simply turn a switch. But this is the right approach.

Notice the PC upset when it is pointed out that Islam has been spawning terrorism and intolerance since it was started? It is all “No Islam isn’t the problem it is Al Quida, Whahabism, [insert name of Islamic faction here].” “It is only a minority of Muslims that are violent.” But they always seem to have that minority and bow before it. Corruption of the Mullahs seems to be a constant but no changes to reduce that are tolerated. The Iron Rice Bowel of Islam.

It’s almost like a post Cold war version of Detente in which, while some Americans are dying, we agree to comfortable lies about why because admitting the truth and doing something it would upset too many people. It’s going to take 21st century Reagan and Co. to sort it, and I’m not sure we make those any more.

Our failure in foreign policy is, in my humble opinion, due to the fact that we won’t demand basic freedoms be supported before allowing U.S. tax dollars to be spent around the world. Why, oh why, in the world would we be spending blood and treasure in a country that refuses to support our First Amendment? Aren’t we then strengthening the enemies of the freedom we supposedly cherish? Nope, that can’t be it because GE and others are good ambassadors of our freedom. Yeah. That’s the ticket. American business bribing foreign leaders and our politicians to continue to send our money to thugs. Seems to be working and shifting to high gear! NO AID, NO VISAS, NO TAX SUPPORTED projects unless the U.S. Constitution’s FIRST AMENDMENT is enshrined in their founding documents. Too simple? Yes, but proven over hundreds of years.

What made Ronald Reagan great was not only his principles in standing up for the US against our enemies, but also his abilities as the “Great Communicator” to educate the public about what needed to be done.

We cannot afford to wait for another Ronald Reagan. We (you and me) must step up to the plate and educate the public.

That’s why we blog, that’s why we comment, that’s why we meet with people face-to-face and educate our friends and associates.

Would you really ditch Pakistan, just for PR and moral concerns, Mr Goldman?
Think only of the Second World War. The Western Allies drew huge advantage by supporting the Soviets, as three quarters of the German forces fought at the Eastern Front. And they allied with the USSR although Stalin ranked among the Top3 all-time-villains, had obviously second thoughts about the Alliance with the Western democracies and let his allies down, like the Polish resistance during the Warsaw Uprising.
The situation in the Afpak is similar: Pakistan is the battlefield, and it is better to fight only against 50% than 100% of its security apparatus with all the corruption, betrayal etc. Furthermore, it seems doubtable to me, that India would really send troops in the Afghan “Blutpumpe”. Were could they implement their supply line? And the Pakistanis would openly support the Taliban and other warlords openly.
I believe, the current situation is best as it might get.

“We cannot bring stability, let along democracy, to this part of the world. At best we can insulate ourselves from the consequences.”

And that insulation includes 30,000,000 newly arrived Muslim colonizers in Europe, and 5-7,000,000 in America, right.

So tell us, professor, as the Muslim world “collapses”, (as you predict*), will those Muslim numbers in the West swell even further, or will they shrink? Of course we know they will swell.

And as those numbers swell, professor, will the political influence of those Muslims increase even further, or will it diminish?
It will increase.

And as more millions flee to the West, and their political influence explodes, will they turn away from Islam and embrace the West, or will they do what they’re already doing now, and embrace Islam more fervently with each generation, and blame the West for their collapse and their ubiquitous failures? You know the answer. But suggesting we need a lot less Muslims in the West as their civilization marches toward Armageddon is one of the stupidest ideas Spengler has heard.

So you really don’t mean it when you say we should insulate ourselves from the consequences of Islam, do you?

I’d also argue that what looks like failure to us, the savagery, the totalitarianism, the rank corruption and hatred, are not markers of failure to the Muslim mind. Globally, 80% of the Muslims whenever polled want to see more Sharia and more Islam as an answer to everything that proceeds. In short, Islam as both poison and cure, is the only thing Muslims will ever turn to. They are captives of a heinous, parasitic but perfect destruction machine. And their Islam needs destroying badly. THAT is how we insulate ourselves from Islam’s consequences. Any other course leads to more captives of Islam, more slaves of Islam, and more spread of their perfect monstrous entropic machine of devastation.

“..In short, Islam as both poison and cure, is the only thing Muslims will ever turn to. They are captives of a heinous, parasitic but perfect destruction machine. And their Islam needs destroying badly. THAT is how we insulate ourselves from Islam’s consequences. Any other course leads to more captives of Islam, more slaves of Islam, and more spread of their perfect monstrous entropic machine of devastation.”

I’d be curious to hear how we’d go about destroying a religion in present times. In the bad old days we just killed its believers, ensuring their children didn’t survive. What could we do now? Propose and propagate a new religion in opposition and let the two fight it out? Let most of them starve like they do now due to their own failed economic policies and current high food prices? Let only those who recant their allegiance escape to the West?

Stalin didn’t have Comintern agents stage attacks on US embassies during World War II.
It’s a bit late to get Indian troops into Afghanistan. There are a number of things I would do to frighten the Pakistanis; let us say that the threat is mightier than the execution, although the threat of execution is required for the threat to be credible. Pardon me for not going into details in print.

This gives me the opportunity to quote the Maltese Falcon (Bogart and Sydney Greenstreet)

Kasper Gutman: Well, sir, there are other means of persuasion besides killing and threatening to kill.
Sam Spade: Yes, that’s… That’s true. But, there’re none of them any good unless the threat of death is behind them. You see what I mean? If you start something, I’ll make it a matter of your having to kill me or call it off.

The Pakistanis and the Iranians have taken our measure and know that the threat of death is not behind any of our bluster.

For my money, our best strategy for dealing with Pakistan is:

1. Prepare special ops forces to seize their nukes. And I mean literally having the team on alert in Afghanistan ready to insert within 48 hours of the go call. This would be an expensive commitment to sustain over a long time but considering the consequences, a prudent investment. It would probably require us to commit an entire battalion of Army Rangers. We have 3.

2. Launch an air campaign (drones and manned aircraft) to suppress and attrit the Haqqani network. Have the US ambassador go to the President of Pakistan and tell him in no uncertain terms that this is what we are doing. And we are not going to make it public.

3. Make military aid to Pakistan contingent on “good behavior”. Humphrey Bogart’s deal with the Germans in Sahara is a good model. For every live terrorist you turn over to the CIA for interrogation we release $100k in aid. If they turn over any Taliban or Al Qaeda bigs, they get $10MM. Money for terrorists.

Iran is actually more difficult because we clearly are not going to invade. We should follow Clausewitz’s suggestion about how you deal with alliances. Attack the weaker partner. We should be doing everything in our power to destabilize Syria.

Pakistan has at least two divisions garrisoned to protect its weapons, so good luck with that. Maybe the Airborne Corps would be sufficient for this task.
The drone campaign is already in progress, as the news sometimes tell.

I guess, to threaten to stop the aid and to involve India (if New Delphi does not call the bluff are the only options left for the US in this matter.

All these great suggestions are moot as long as we have 0b0ma and Holder, and Co. running this great nation, oh for a great man like General Blackjack Pershing Or any of a dozen of great Generals that won wars for our nation…
Right now we have to plan our strategy, simply to live safe for the next few years…Lets all do what is in our power to dump this adm….jimi

Well, Armitage used such a threat with Pervez and it worked. Unfortunately, these are exceptions, not the rule, as the US instinct is to appease.

You refer to the American people hating such treatments by third-rate enemies. Unfortunately, when actions are taken to prevent it (and may I say, usually incmpetently) and there is a price to pay (as there must be) they are also the first to lose heart and withdraw support.

Interesting analysis, as always, but I must disagree. To me, the main problem is not the Pentagon’s fear of Middle East instability; it’s the urgent need of the antisemitic, Israel-hating Arabist career officers in the State Department to be liked by Arabs. That and the philo-Third Worldism, inability (as you pointed out) to listen to reason and – yes – antisemitism of the left.

The fear of instability and concomitant threat to U.S. assets and personnel arises from the only strategy (barely and rarely) under discussion being bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, while, apparently, leaving the Mullah and Revolutionary Guard in power and capable of ordering, directing and financing a counterattack.

To me, the better (and, dare I say, obvious) strategy that I would order if I were president, would be:

1. Announce America’s immediate withdrawal from the Quartet;

2. Announce that Israel will no longer be treated as a distant friend that we support, but as an ally with whom we will fight.

3. Very publicly form a formal military alliance with Israel, which obviously has a mutual interest in seeing Iran’s current leadership out of power, but which, more importantly, has an army that, assuming logistical and air support from us, would be, or could be made to be, capable of invading Iran, with or without the aide of American boots on the ground, and removing the current leadership, leaving no one in place to direct a counterattack on U.S. assets. A counterattack that, given the prevalence of Bin Laden’s “strong horse” theory in the Arab world, I strongly suspect would not even happen and if it did, would end as soon as it became apparent who the strong horse was.

4. To that end, without making any formal announcement, public or private, of an intent to remove the Iranian leadership, I would immediately and very publicly begin military planning – and more important, exercises – clearly intended to prepare for an invasion of Iran, decapitation (literally, if I had my wish) of the leadership and the total destruction of Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities, transforming it from one of the strongest powers in the region, to the weakest, unable even to resist a future invasion from Iraq.

5. Hopefully, at some point, the sight of Israeli planes practicing landings and takeoffs on/from U.S. aircraft carriers positioned off the Iranian coast would convince the Mullahs that we and the Israelis have a plan to remove them from power and eliminate Iran as a major actor in the Middle East that absolutely would succeed if carried out.

6. Iran – and by implication, the entire Arab world – becomes, in prison parlance, “our bitch” and the leadership either steps down or bends over (as we, not they, choose). Or they don’t, we issue the Mullahs an ultimatum and take ‘em out if they don’t comply.

Even better would be a “Triumvirate” – America-Israel-India (with whom Israel has, I understand, warm relations. Then, together – especially if the Israelis and Indians pledge mutual assistance – we can take care of Pakistan, too.

…..let’s raise that “Bolton bar” a bit wider and broader (deliberately avoiding mention of “higher”) than merely our State Department. Your first action as President will be to re-install Bolton as U.S.Delegate to the United Nations…..the wails of frustration and anguish and breast beating from the majority Third World members will then resonate from the rafters of all meeting rooms in that building.

As President, you will instruct him to “stop payment” on all U.S. dollar checks outstanding, from any source, and hold up all of our dues payments to the U.N.; and further instruct him to engineer the removal of the U.N.to new facilities built on the border between Gaza and Egypt, in un-airconditioned buildings spread over a wide expanse of the border-area desert. Then, after a decent interval, we may re-consider re-starting payment of our dues.

Bolton would be (and was) wasted at the U.N. I need him at State. Congress can pass a bill stopping payments, which I would sign as soon as it hits my desk. There are also many mentally-challenged (or whatever the politically correct term is for “retarded”) people who nevertheless would be capable of following an instruction to veto – and on the rare occasion when the UN makes sense – vote for a resolution.

Actually, you just reminded me of another item to put on my to-do list: Take the U.S. out of the UN completely and form a “League of Democracies” that would meet separately from the UN and consolidate their formerly individual UN seats into a single seat on the Security Council – thus making the UN an organization of 100-plus tyrannies and one democracy. This would much better present the UN as what it actually is.

I also like a suggestion once made by my proposed attorney-general, Rudolph Giuliani: Move the UN to Harlem (where they could use the economic boost – trust me, I live there) and turn the current building into condos.

Goldman is exactly right…”We cannot bring stability, let along democracy, to this part of the world. At best we can insulate ourselves from the consequences.”

At every opportunity I see I post somewhere the reminder that Cold War-type containment or isolation [...being excellent forms of insulation...] was successful over that much, much larger land area of the Soviet Empire. We won that one, albeit aided by internal collapse. Islam is not immune to internal collapse.

We did this without a ground war fighting the Soviets within their borders on their turf. Asia is, again, an absorbent sponge where we should avoid fighting. Viet Nam should’ve taught that lesson…..but too many years have passed and the Viet Nam era veterans with first hand knowledge of this are old and retired.

We Americans have developed a dangerously short attention span,”geared” towards instant gratification in approaching and solving all of these endlessly multiplying international aspects. Whack-a-mole,indeed. The current administration personifies this new era of “partial” short term examination in its evaluation of this Islamic agressive/expansive process extending over fourteen centuries.

We Americans need a change of mindset-attention-span, and I don’t know how to effect that. Working around short-term domestic politically percieved competitive interests has indeed become, already, our great handicap. This has the effect of broadcasting our weaknesses and vulnerability.

In 1993, it was discovered that Iraq had conspired to assassinate ex-President HW Bush. Clinton decided that couldn’t go unanswered, so one night (the lawyers wanted few casualties) a barrage of cruise missiles leveled the Iraqi intelligence building. Hussein got the message.

Ten years later, it was clear that Iran was sponsoring proxies with money, arms and training to kill US soldiers, while Syria acted as a virtual way-station for terrorists similarly intent on killing US soldiers and making post-Saddam Iraq ungovernable. Yet neither was ever made to pay a price for those actions.

It’s clear the reticence to describe things as they are, to “name names”, stems from the understanding that to do so would mean they would have to *do something* – to take action, change course, etc. They’d rather not.

The US has, unfortunately, decided that being liked is better than being feared and respected.

This doesn’t even work in one-on-one interpersonal relationships, much less in international diplomacy. When someoene knows that being liked is more important to you than anything else, they know that they have you by the short hairs and all they have to do to get you to do what they want is threaten to not like you. Countires are no different.

Instead of making the world “our bitch”, as someone pointed out upthread, we have willingly become theirs. We have given away our dignity and freedom of action to people who will always hate us no matter what we do. I would rather be respected because I am strong than despised because I am weak.

I supported the invasions of Iraq because I (foolishly, in retrospect) assumed it was, finally, the first phase of a long-range plan to overthrow the Iranian regime. Had I known that we were just going to waste our blood and treasure to try to get the Muslims to like us (my G-d), I would never have supported it.

Thee US has never had sufficient knowledge and understanding of foreign culture to conduct a competent foreign policy. For as long as it was a superpower this was sustainable. But the long-term effect of this was to erode its superpower status and now the US can no longer rely on it to overcome its incompetence.

What the US lacks that the ME is chockful of is cunning. If you want an example, check out Daniel Pipes piece on Egypt’s junta exploitation of the Israeli embassy attack.

As long as the US relies almost exclusively on bribes and military power–out of which it has robbed itself–it does not have much of a future.

“Why, for that matter, have we let Iran get away with the murder-by-proxy of American soldiers in Iraq? The answer in both cases is that our commitment to stability in the region compels us to pretend that inherently unstable, murderous, and dangerous regimes are pillars of public order who must be appeased and protected. That is the fundamental flaw in American foreign policy, and it infected the Bush Freedom Agenda from the beginning.”

No, it is not. You are wrong. In case you haven’t noticed it, we have a socialist president who wants to spend all of his money on social-welfare programs and NOT on the military. Obama also sees all overseas wars as “distractions,” things that take time and money away from his domestic agenda. When he says that we’re going to be out of Iraq this year and out of Afghanistan next year, he means it. Barring some huge development, he is sticking to that timetable. Attacking either Iran or Pakistan for their involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq would only prolong those wars, NOT shorten them. Obama knows that if he retaliates against against either Iran or Pakistan, those two countries could make life very, very, difficult for us in Iraq and, especially, Afghanistan, prolonging our involvement there indefinitely. So Obama is going to be out of both countries by next year’s election because he wants to prove to his base that he is the “anti-war” president who “brought the troops home.” Well, Richard Nixon said the same thing about Vietnam in 1973 and we all saw how well that turned out.

Oh, and if you’re wondering about those drone attacks in Pakistan, Obama will continue those because they are very, very, limited attacks on Pakistan. And if we’re out of Afghanistan, who is Pakistan going to retaliate against? Nope, Obama’s game plan is to cut and run as soon as possible, which is why Iran and Pakistan can do just about anything they want.

Another excellent presentation, and some intriguing suggestions/comments. IMHO, the current aspinal intern in the WH cannot conceive and would never execute a positive policy supporting US interests. An infinite shelf of finely honed and toned plans accomplishes nada without the will at the top. RR made it clear from day one that he would make the decisions, and that the goal was victory, not a smoother ride to accommodation. “We win, they lose” cleared a lot of sinuses, and kick started the long final chapter of the Cold War. Too many ideas have been “off the table” for too long now. All the best analyses of possibilities, acquiring the best plans, provisions, and people will not accomplish positive change absent worthy leadership. We need a competent President, and need to get involved in the political arena directly to put such a person in the WH. It is time to make the gomers go to bed worrying what the US response might be to their latest insanity, not Americans worrying what our latest cave will cost. Hope [ and work ] for massive political change in 2012. GBUSA

I begin my timeline on October 23, 1983, at 6:22 AM. The iranians, syrians, saudi, pakistanis, afghanis, the yemenis, just to name some, have been killing American Servicemen/women, and civilians for that matter, ever since. There is no one with the fortitude to exact revenge and go for total lethal victory, or bring all of the troops home, which is what needs to be done sine we have such weak, pride-less, greedy INDIVIDUALS serving in our government. Watching our Republic being run into the ground is a disgrace.

What’s new here? Another Israel-first nutjob named Gold-something frothing at the wrist about how America should go to war against Israel’s perceived enemies. This one was so angry he couldn’t type properly:

Let them worry about instability. And let their paranoid imaginations run wild concerning what we might to do them.

Why do we? Well, it seems to have started with George W. Bush’s pragmatic unwillingness to take the bull by the horns (which was quite understandable, given the ginned-up domestic anti-war activism that overwhelmed his second term. And now it is being carried forward by B. Hussein Obama’s world-global-statist desire that the jihadis and their state sponsors come to love us (him).

We need a conservative and an America-first hawk in the White House. We need to continue to set an example with these retrogrades. We need to “speak” clearly to them in the sort of “narrative” that they understand and respect. That will bring an end to these in-your-face assaults/provocations.

We are the United States of America. We don’t need to take this crap off the likes of Ajad and the ISI.

Spengler, don’t forget the IEDs made in Iran, more powerful than the earlier type. God knows how many Americans were killed and maimed by the Republican Guard manufactured devices shipped into Iraq. IEDs caused 80 or 90% of deaths and maimings of our boys in Iraq. Also, I agree with the whole thrust of your article, including Daniel Pipes idea. I thought I was the only one who thought so, until you mentioned Pipes. You disagree with the neo-con total support of the Bush Irag policy, as I did and do; does that remove you from the club?

Ah the IEDs. That Iran used to such terrible effect were R&D’d by Hezbollah in Gaza against Israeli tanks.
Their “operatives” went back and forth through the tunnels while Egypt turned a blind eye, contrary to their “Peace” agreement, and Foggy Bottom shortsightedly was concentrating on magazines for the Metro Sexual Arab.
Israel, that Sh**ty little country, that helped America protect its strategic security in the region against Russian insurgence, during all the years of the Cold War, was suddenly an embarrassment and had its S&P Ally rating dropped to C.
As #10 HrdCrps mentions, the mess the “realists” made in Lebanon in 1983 when Marines protecting Lebanese civilians were killed by the nascent Hezbollah gave Iran all the encouragement it it needed for its jihad.

Short answer…because our gov’t is cowardly & stupid. A few well aimed missles into Iran’s military every time an IED went off or a terrorist act happened would speak volumes. But, unfortunately, w/ all of the eunicks & girly men in DC, nothing good like this would even happen-even after they get nukes.

In early 2004 several Israelis I spoke to shook their heads in disbelief as the US closed its eyes (if it was obvious to Israeli civilians then Washington must have been aware) to Syrian complicity in helping insurgents enter Iraq to attack Americans.
Another unbelievable action was no reaction to Turkey, NATO member, refusing passage for US troops into northern Iraq in 2003 which then required a complete change of plan.

Re: “A rough translation of Mullen’s remarks into civilian political language is that the quixotic notion of building democracy in the Middle East led the United States into an Iranian trap.” Iran could (and still can) act as a spoiler in Iraq and make shambles of our trillion-dollar investment in Iraqi democracy. The Bush administration held back from hitting Iran because, as Mike Mullen explained, our nation-building exercise made American warriors into targets and hostages.”

By my calculation, the grand strategy of the jihadists has all along been to drag the United States into fourth-generation wars of the kind in which we are now engaged in the Middle East and South Asia. The 9-11 attacks were designed to lure us into chasing al-Qaeda and their allies into the hinterlands of Afghanistan, where we would be fighting on their home ground, on some of the worst terrain in the world for waging offensive war, and largely at the time and place of their choosing, on conditions as-favorable to them as possible. In this, the attacks succeeded brilliantly – with a return on investment on the order of tens of millions to one in their favor.

War and now nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost trillions, the blood of our soldiers, and spread internal dissention and disagreement among our population, and for what meaningful return?

Feigning retreat – or using raids as a provocation – to lure an enemy into a fight on unfavorable terms is a prototypical Muslim tribal form of warfare. We would be wise not to fall for it. Remaining in the Middle East and S. Asia as a long-term occupying force plays right into our enemy’s hands. Such imperial adventures cost the British their wealth and empire, and the result will be the same for us unless we change our ways for the wiser. Of course, this will require a change in political leadership at the top… it isn’t going to happen under Obama. It would also help to have a Congress whose members begin taking their foreign policy oversight obligations seriously again.

it seems that Americans should be worrying a lot more about Pakistan’s nefarious actions than just killing Americans in Afghanistan.

One of the more peculiar twists in the caliphate’s tale is that a sizable amount of the funding for Islamic propaganda aimed at Americans comes from Muslim-owned defense contractors.

Sabtech Industries recently made the news when it lost its security clearance after some suspicious donations to Muslim charities cost its president, Rahim Sabadia, his security clearance. Sabtech’s work on upgrading the Navy’s AEGIS system on warships put it at the nerve center of one of the most important defense technologies in the United States.

The real question, though, is not how Rahim Sabadia lost his security clearance, but how he got it in the first place.Sabadia was foreign born and had close ties to Pakistan as a member of (COPA) the Council of Pakistan-American Affairs.

Read the article and JohnP if you’re not already praying 5 times a day start worry about what they “to you will do”!

Does not surprise me one bit. If we have islamists working in the White House, why not defense contractors?

I keep insisting that the islamists are not the problem, the West is because it commits suicide. It is thoroughly infiltrated by the enemy and it either indifferent to, it facilitates, or outright support its own undermining.

Because they are in bed with Iran and Russia! Why is Russia blocking sanctions against Basher al-Assad? Money, pure and simple, investments; Russia, China, and Iran have invested heavily in Assad and they have a vested interest in the West not getting on the ground and seeing what has been, and continues to be, done.

Because Great Britain wants so. Islamic regime that is occupying Iran was by the order of the Brits and the obedience of Carter. Great Britain and France want to keep the status quot of Islamic mafia regimes in the mid east, because they are heavily invested in them. From their oil companies to their banks, etc. Russia, China are in the same camp. Russia has gotten almost 90% control of the Caspian sea from the mullahs in Iran in exchange of their support in the UN against any meaningful sanction.
World politics is truly sick, corrupt and miss represented by our lying media.
If we truly want peace and stability in our world, then gather up your courage like Regan did and call out the Brits on their dirty back stabbing ever since world war II.
Have you ever asked yourselves why is it that the Iranian Bank of Meli the state bank for proliferation of jihad money, and nuke money does not get sanctioned by the UN? Well, answer is hat the Brits, French and the Germans are heavily invested in it.

World will be a safer place without Russia, the EU leaders of lying witches and China. Without these Islamists will be out of lives and our world stage.

I read in the newspapers about our soldiers that have died and are injured and see so many that have been killed by IEDs. We know that many of these IEDs come by way of Iran or Iranians. It makes me sick to see this happening with impunity to Iran. I think this only encourages their supply and use. I often think that if we had a policy to pinprick back at Iran through covert operations in a tit for tat response to these attacks (with the tat being much harsher that the tit), whether we know it stems from their involvement or think it is, that this would ultimately reduce Iran’s involvement and reduce U.S. casualties.

Mr. Goldman is one of the distressingly few critics of the Middle East wars, that we’ve invested precious American blood and treasure in for the past 10 years, challenging the duration and futility of our experience in the Middle East since 2001. Administrations of both political persuasions and exalted members of the media continue to express their fervent hope for a victory, defined as self contained, self policing, democratically elected governments, that seems more elusive and less likely with each passing day.

To the ill informed, that is those not privy to the inner machinations of those government and military officials confident in their self inflicted delusions, it is impossible to understand how any nation can ever achieve victory over a people inculcated from birth to hate everything an invader stands for. And this is what the West cannot come to grips with. The major question is, why do they hate us followed by what must we do to make them like us?? Their answer is apparently make them like us by remaking them to be just like us.

How infuriating and how foreign is it to those who understand that the answers to both of these questions are irrelevant to the only end that could possibly result in victory under these circumstances, a victory not currently recognized, defined or sought by the allied forces involved in the conflict and worse, a victory to be avoided at all costs.

Why do we or should we, give a damn if they like us and instead direct all our efforts at making them fear us? Given our diminishing but still formidable military power why do we not start this process by launching “shock and awe” against Iran, the major sponsor of the bulk of the chaos in the region, including Iraq and Afghanistan, the head of the Hydra headed monster, sponsor of terrorism, inflicting mayhem and the slow death of a thousand cuts on American and allied troops? In a joint, overt operation with the IDF annihilate their nuclear capability completely and reduce their military capability to as near zero as possible. In effect render them toothless, a blustering pile of excrement that leaves the entire region in a state of chaos faced with an existential, internal struggle for basic survival. See how long they survive living their preferred 7th century existence.

They’re obsessed with their medieval faith in a stultifying, misogynistic, cruel religion that is the complete antithesis of modern, Western, Judeo/Christian culture. They will never like us. They hate us. They hate all non-Muslims, the unbelievers and most especially the Jews. The only solution to this ignorance and backwardness, short of complete annihilation, is constant surveillance, isolation and denial of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological, chemical and via cyberspace. They hate us. Lets give them a big fat reason to hate us and more importantly, fear us as the Super Power we’ve now illogically given them every reason to believe we no longer are.

The world is not ready for the idealistic solutions preferred and sought by Progressives convinced that it is that which nurtures and provides them the opportunity to protest with impunity that needs to be confronted, subdued and reformed. Is that because it is, after all, a far easier, far less threatening and therefore far more attractive target? Virulent, passionate, convoluted demonstrations against Muslims? Does the name Theo Van Gogh ring a bell?

For seven years the US has done next to nothing about the Iranian crazies while they built up their Jihadist resume by killing Americans troops with impunity. But what the mullahs say they intend to do now is far worse: they recently declared their intention to liberate the world from all traces of democracy and established a worldwide Islamist caliphate with them, of course, at the helm. It might be hard to take their limited military capability seriously, but the point is they do.

A little timely retaliation against the mad mullahs would have had an impact. Now, some lives and certainly a lot of treasure will have to be expended to deal with these madmen.

OBAMA AND HILLARY WISH JEWS A HAPPY NEW YEAR BY DECLARING JERUSALEM THE ILLIGITIMATE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL.

You heard me. In what is an outrageous reversal from candidate Obama’s disingenuous AIPAC speech three years ago (where he boldly declared Jerusalem “the indivisible capital of Israel”), and Hillary Clinton’s support of Israeli ownership of Jerusalem as Senator, now these two perfidious
snakes have gone to the opposite extreme stating in a State Department brief filed with the Supreme Court that Israel has got it all wrong; that it has no sovereignty or territorial rights over Jerusalem; that Jerusalem is a city belonging to no state or people; that it’s a city state unto itself; that the people of Jerusalem aren’t Israeli citizens; that, in effect, they are Jerusalemites; and that Israel’s claim that Jerusalem is its capital is bogus and illigitimate.

I just read a long post by “NOT-ME”, on how the US and Israel should render Iran militarily helpless. I posted a one line agreement, and when I looked to see if it appeared, “NOT-ME”‘s post had disappeared. Not his #29 post, a later, much longer one. What’s that about.

The situation is not going to get better until we withdraw and bring our troops home and station them along our contiguous national borders. These islamist throwbacks know what they are doing; they are not stealing, we are giving them weapons, technology, and billions of dollars and all of the while they are conspiring to kill us. Who is going to have the fortitude to lead us out of this mess? Even “Mr. Peace though Strength,” Ronald Reagan, could not deal with the islamists. Oh the shame he brought upon the Corps and our Nation as he had the Marine Warriors withdrawal and all of the while the islamists were laughing, shooting and saying, “look at those dogs, running away with their tales between their legs.” pakistan and iran expect that the same scenario is going to repeat itself because our government is filled vile weakness.

I don’t think it was Ronald Reagan per se who could not deal with Islamists but that he had three idiot “Realists” advising him: James Baker, Caspar Weinberger and H.W. Bush.

Even the French were ready to bash the Iranian foreign legion, for the murderous bombing of their and American troops in Beirut, in the Bekaa valley but Weinberger and Baker turned tail. Most probably their pensions from the Saudis were threatened.

I have disagreed with your analysis of the “Surge” in Iraq, but would enjoy seeing you take Max Boot to the woodshed over his analysis of the effectiveness of the US response to Iranian sponsored terrorism in Iraq: “We should start treating ISI the way we treated the Iranian Quds Force in Iraq. To stop the Quds Force from targeting our troops via local proxies, we mounted a multi-pronged campaign that included everything from the arrest of Quds Force operatives, to diplomatic pressure, to economic sanctions” – http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/frenemies-pakistan_594669.html.

Dealing with Pakistan requires a deal with China, which is easier than it might look, given China’s recent alarm about Pakistan harboring Uyghur terrorists. It also requires a deal with India, including Indian troop deployment to Afghanistan. That is harder than it looks, given the weak-kneed Congress Party government. The Obamoids have damaged American standing considerably. I don’t know what Boot is talking about, as usual. Drone strikes? Ultimately we need to threaten Pakistan with vivisection and a new map.

2. What makes you think the Indian Army has the COIN capability (not necessarily “three cups of tea”, but effective helicopter support, significant numbers of deployable special forces troops, Intel-Targeting, etc. to intervene decisively in Afghanistan? My research consisted of a quick Google search but I’m not sure they can cut the mustard (unless the problem of support from Pakistan is eliminated).

3. As a hobby, I have just begun to ask Afghans with whom I interact in eastern Afghanistan (mid-level legal and military with some education, as well as the occasional rural elder or merchant or truck driver) how they would feel about Indian troops in Afghanistan. Apparently it is a subject of current local news and talk, but people are generally suspicious of and hostile to the idea. I have only spoken with a few locals so far on this topic and will continue to sample.